PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
Choose among the candidates we have and create momentum against the high-polling candidate you least want.
Would I prefer a younger, more liberal candidate than Biden? Yes. Is Trump’s coalition a serious threat to democracy, marginalized groups, bodily rights for women, progress against climate change, and on and on? Yes.
I’m throwing my vote onto the Biden side of the scale; sometimes you’ve got to take the strategic move. Also, Biden is pretty good on many policies; though deeply disappointing on Gaza and I’ll keep calling the White House pushing on this issue among others like calling for opposition to the so-called ‘Kids Online Safety Act’. (Biden’s also possibly the shortest path to a biracial woman of color as President. I wish she was less cozy with cops, but I like Harris well enough.)
I like mithriltabby (Max Kaehn)’s argument: “the best move available is to get Biden elected and push the downballot toward better policies; in the process of holding his coalition together, Biden will then support them.”
MEMBER, DEMOCRATIC COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE (CHOOSE 14): GALLOTTA, HARDY, AVALOS, JEREMY LEE, CHUNG, CHRISTENSEN, BELL, BERRY, VELASQUEZ, NGUYEN, SIMPSON, OCHOA, ROSSELLI, MARTINEZ
There is a big money move to shift SF and our DCCC to the right. Astroturf (fake grassroots) groups like GrowSF, TogetherSF, StopCrimeSF, Neighbors for a Better SF (backed by a Republican mega-donor), Families for a Vibrant SF, and Committee to Fix SF Government are pushing a tough-on-crime (reduced oversight, pro-cop), tough-on-drugs (testing before care), billionaire-friendly agenda.
The strong connection between this anti-progressive investment and London Breed is one more factor reinforcing my withdrawal of support for her as Mayor; she was great for the first year of the pandemic and her policies saved lives, but she’s no longer the same Mayor she was then.
To be clear, I’m not as progressive as some of the folks I’m voting for, but I am left of the ones the big money is trying to get elected to the DCCC.
While Jane Kim is on the SF League of Pissed Off Voters slate and I generally agree with their slate this time around, I will not be voting for her. I was not pleased with her behavior on the Board of Supes after Mayor Lee’s death, her support of building moratoriums, and her attempts to spin Scott Weiner as a corporate tool (doing tremendous disservice to his work). I will instead vote for union organizer Christopher Christensen. (I found a 2020 response to Pissed Off Voters survey that puts him a bit more progressive than me, which is fine. Yeah, I’m probably not happy with his building position either, but I like his union cred.)
UNITED STATES SENATOR: BARBARA LEE
I’d be happy with Barbara Lee or Katie Porter, and not unhappy about Adam Schiff, but I’m voting Lee in the primary as part of my ‘Biden at the top of the ticket, progressive downballot’ approach. Note that you need to vote twice, once for the next term and once for the remainder of the current term.
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 11: NANCY PELOSI
With frustration that she hasn’t blessed a successor and that there isn’t a serious elected official alternative, I’ll vote for Pelosi. (We don’t trade the Speaker of the House for someone who hasn’t held significant office; that’s just strategically bad.)
STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 11: SCOTT WIENER
I’m very happy with Wiener’s service as an elected official. Glad to keep supporting him, and hoping for this long time work on housing to continue. (Though I am annoyed to see him listed on one of the many mailers that came in my mail as a supporter of SF Prop E, the cop oversight reduction measure. Will bring that up next time I’m calling on an issue.)
STATE ASSEMBLYMEMBER, DISTRICT 17: MATT HANEY
Happy with Haney’s work.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, SEAT #1 & #13: MICHAEL BEGERT & PATRICK THOMPSON
These existing judges do not need to be removed and particularly not for more conservative judges backed by fake grassroots organizations like SF Women for Common Sense Government. The only thing I can find online about them is that Mary Jung mentioned forming the group in an anti-sex work opinion piece in the Examiner in 2016. She was then chairwoman of the DCCC and director of government and community relations for the SF Association of Realtors. More recently she was chair of the recall campaign against Chesa Boudin. Allegedly retired after that, but…
State Proposition 1, MONEY FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND TREATMENT BEDS: YES
This is what we’ve been asking for to help get folks with serious challenges off the street. Is it perfect? No. Is that OK? Yes.
SF Proposition A, MONEY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING: YES!
Housing, housing, housing!
SF Proposition B, MINIMUM POLICE STAFFING/COP TAX: NO
The specifics of departmental staffing should not be a voter question. And if crime drops, why would we want to be paying for a minimum number of cops that is difficult to change? This seems expensive and just a ploy to entrench police power, so I was surprised to see the usual line-up scrambled to both sides on it. The GOP is against it and so are the Pissed Off Voters, as is Mayor Breed. On the Board of Supes, Peskin, Chan, and Safai support it as does Assemblymember Haney. Had to look at this one pretty closely. The Controller’s Statement is helpful, and I was decided by this note in it: “This proposed amendment is not in compliance with a non-binding, voter-adopted city policy regarding set-asides. The policy seeks to limit set-asides which reduce General Fund dollars that could otherwise be allocated by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in the annual budget process.” This only got on the ballot with a 6-to-5 vote of the Supes, so I think we kick it back for a closer to unanimous good plan.
SF Proposition C, TAX BREAKS FOR COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS: NO!
There’s an icky loophole in this one: “Proposition C would authorize the Board to amend, reduce, suspend or repeal the transfer tax without voter approval.” We voted in 2020 to increase the property transfer tax on luxury properties sold for over $10 million; this creates a way for a pro-real estate Board of Supes to override the will of the voters. Nope! (It is supported by GrowSF, who are funded by anti-progressive tech execs and investors like Ron Conway and Garry Tan.)
SF Proposition D, TIGHTEN CITY ETHICS RULES: YES!
Minimal costs for reduced risk of corruption in local government. These are not controversial changes, so this is an easy Yes.
SF Proposition E, WEAKEN POLICE OVERSIGHT/ADD WARRANTLESS POLICE SURVEILLANCE POWERS: NO!
Remove citizen oversight of SFPD? Let them implement new surveillance tech without Commission or Board approval? Hell no! There is so much bullshit in this one, and that it’s coming from Mayor Breed is worth noting for November when we vote her out. (Yeah, I voted her in, but a lot has changed, especially her rightward shift.)
Worth noting for context that the supposedly interested in social and economic justice Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club is supporting both E and C, also the moderate DCCC candidates backed by big money; progressive-sounding isn’t necessarily progressive slate-ing.
SF Proposition F, INEFFECTUAL COERCIVE DRUG SCREENING FOR POOREST IN SF: NO!
This isn’t just cruel, it’s stupid and expensive. It would almost certainly increase homelessness, forcing some housed people on SF’s adult assistance program which costs $712/month per person out on the street where they cost the SF $5000/month per person. And we’re short on staff and rehab beds as it is, so this isn’t going to solve anything. It’s tough-on-users posturing (which research shows does not reduce substance abuse) by the Mayor and it’s a bad proposition.
SF Proposition G, TELL TEACHERS HOW TO TEACH MATH: NO
This should not be on the damn ballot. “Proposition G would make it City policy to encourage the School District to offer Algebra 1 to students by their eighth-grade year”. Note that the city has no legal authority over the school district, and the district has already committed to bring Algebra back to 8th grade and met about it yesterday. This is a weird effort by astroturf groups to stir up anger against public education. (More detail on this is available in the Pissed Off Voter Guide.)
Additional context:
- The Guardian: “Inside tech billionaires’ push to reshape San Francisco politics: ‘a hostile takeover’”
- Mission Local: “BigMoneySF: Explore the major players paying out to remake San Francisco”
- Mission Local: “BigMoneySF: What do new advocacy groups really want?”
- San Francisco Chronicle: “Chesa Boudin recall caps 50 years of activism for former S.F. Democratic chair”
And noting that Mary Jung’s still doing political podcasts as recently as a few weeks ago. Haven’t listened yet. Seems like she’s still pro-Democrat, just probably a lot more moderate than me.
MetaGrrrl 